Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hyaȷ́atás
Latest comment: 3 years ago by SodhakSH in topic RFV discussion: June 2020–May 2021
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
The thematic vowel points to these being secondary. Probably should be deleted. @Ariamihr, AryamanA, JohnC5 --{{victar|talk}} 21:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Victar: We would be keeping the Proto-Iranian entry? The Sanskrit does seem derived regularly rather than inherited. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 21:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- @AryamanA: Yeah, the Iranian would also be secondary, but it's possible that Iranian would have thrown in a thematic vowel. I'll have to look more into that. Certainly wouldn't've been IIr. --
{{victar|talk}}01:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)- @Bhagadatta 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- The PIIr entry and the reconstruction are both valid in my opinion. Even
{{R:inc:IAIL}}reconstructs it. Moreover, Sanskrit yajata can't have a convincing synchronic derivation from the root yaj, be it formally or semantically. Going back to PIIr is what best explains its structure and meaning. I believe that it's an innovation for sure but at the IIR stage. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 15:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)- @Bhagadatta, AryamanA, Victar: Maybe de-tag the entry then? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- The PIIr entry and the reconstruction are both valid in my opinion. Even
- @Bhagadatta 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @AryamanA: Yeah, the Iranian would also be secondary, but it's possible that Iranian would have thrown in a thematic vowel. I'll have to look more into that. Certainly wouldn't've been IIr. --
RFV-Passed 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 07:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
